|
Novak speaks
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Here you go...
Breaking the silence
| quote: | Correcting the CIA
Robert Novak
August 1, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Amb. Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.
So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.
The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact." The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Funny how Novak feels so compelled to talk against his lawyer's advice while not saying about this case for over 2 years. I guess Harlow definitely hit a soft spot on that traiter Novak, which seemingly has a propensity for working with leakers (especially with Rove in the past). I think Larry Johnson, a former CIA man who knew Plame replies to Novak best, emphasis mine throughout:
| quote: | After reading Robert Novak's latest column today, the biggest revelation is that Novak still thinks he has "integrity" and is a legitimate journalist. Talk about delusional.
Back in July 2003 Novak wrote:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
I believe Novak reported accurately that "two senior Administration officials" said that Valerie Plame "suggested the mission". But those sources were spreading deliberate disinformation. A real journalist would have asked some hard questions, things apparently beyond Novak's ability in his dotage. In stark contrast to what the two "senior" Admistration officials told him, CIA officials, both former and current, are on record saying that Novak is wrong and that Plame neither suggested nor authorized the mission. So what does Bob "the responsbile journalist" Novak do? He insists that the info about Plame is right even though officials in her chain of command say the opposite. Who are you going to believe?
Novak also attempts to take refuge in the so-called "bipartisan" Senate Intelligence Committee report on the matter, which makes note of a memo sent by Valerie Plame outlining her husband's bona fides to her boss in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD). What the Senate Republicans conveniently left out of the report is the simple fact that Val's boss had first asked her to write the memo. Senior mangers in CPD suggested the mission and authorized it. Plame's only role was to respond to a supervisor's request for information. Valerie Plame was not a decision maker or manager at the CIA. The SSCI can confirm that very easily. She had no authority to make a decision to send her husband anywhere on offiicial business.
But, we now are reminded what a complete, %&%$$#@@# @#$%^@$%$ (to quote Jon Stewart) Robert Novak really is. He admits that he was told that revealing Plame's identity would cause "difficulties". He describes her in his original article as an "operative". Note, not "analyst" but "operative". Bob Novak has been in town long enough to know the difference. An operative is someone who carries out operations. An analyst is someone who sits at a desk and tries to make sense out of information that operators collect. Bill Harlow says he asked Novak not to use her name and Novak confirms this. CIA spokesmen were in the position of having to protect a sensitive, covert asset and this joke of a journalist did not appreciate that creating difficulties for an intelligence agency in a time of war is a bad thing?
After talking with several friends still inside the operations community, there is a widely held sentiment, "Too bad Novak is not sharing a cell with Judith Miller".
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/1/134048/4705 |
Novak and this Administration had chosen to with the wrong people. They chose to attempt to undermine them and restructure them as a consequence to their negations of this Administration's assertions. You honestly think the CIA workers are gonna sit around and take this ? Apparently not.
To recap what occurred - Novak finds out who Wilson's wife is by two people in the Administration, one we know is Rove. He calls some folks at the CIA who tells him not to use her name. Harlow tries in the most strickest sense to tell Novak WITHOUT revealing classified information that he should not out Wilson's wife. And now Novak is crying about Harlow not telling him strongly enough not to be a ing jackass and blow the ing cover of someone and her operation who's sole job is to protect our country from WMD proliferation?!?
you Novak you ing traitor. Your ing argument in your original piece, your ing premise that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger was flat out false in the first place. The CIA itself confirms this fact. Furthermore, in your rebuttal from Harlow you wrote:
| quote: | | This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. . . . So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. |
The problem is this: Harlow didn't claim that Plame "suggested" Wilson for the trip. What Harlow DID claim was that the initial story Novak told him on the phone - that Plame "authorized" the trip, which was a bold faced lie. Lovely straw man for Novak to set up.
And this bull about people finding out who she was in the "Who's who in America":
| quote: | | [Harlow] told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America." |
Well that's certainly true douchebag, IF her cover as a CIA operative would be blown. IOW, once again Novak the traitor is asserting an irrelevant GOP talking point about Valerie's name. So here it is in plain English:
It's not her ing name that's important, traitor, it's her occupation as an operative is what was classified. Surely after 48 years of being on the beat one such as Novak would know this.
And BTW, I tend to wonder if that "Who's Who" has Valerie listed as Plame or Wilson? I'm betting it's Wilson, considering Plame is her operative name. Just a guess of course, but nevertheless if this is true, why would Novak decide to use Plame instead of Wilson?
Regardless, surely one who's been on the beat for 48 years would know that when a CIA man tells you not to ing go public with the information you've got, you listen to him. If a CIA man says outing such information would cause "difficulties" what the do you think he's talking about, ESPECIALLY when you ing downright know what her goddamn line of work was all about - WMD proliferation?
Amazing. In an effort to clear his name, Novak attempts to appeal to his experience and show that in his 48 years of covering the beat he knows what he's doing. Yet for some reason, his 48 years of experience didn't tell him to listen to the ing CIA when they told him not to come forward with this information. Interesting indeed.
Unless, of course, you have other motives involved.
It's the ultimate height of hypocricy when you write:
| quote: | | This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. |
No ing , Bob - so why'd you do it you ing traiter to your country?
P.S. - the article discussing Harlow's grand jury testimony can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...72602069_2.html) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| You're not grumpy enough! |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| there is so much more to learn.:D |
|
|
|
|
